[1] The meaning of "when the false statement of a witness, which is a ground for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, is admitted as evidence of a judgment"

[2] In case of succession by representation, where the spouse of an alternative person dies or becomes disqualified before the commencement of succession by representation, whether the spouse is recognized as an alternative person (negative)

[1] The term "when the false statement of a witness, which is a ground for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, becomes a evidence of the judgment" refers to the case where the false statement is provided as direct or indirect material of fact-finding that affects the text of the judgment, and it is probable that the text of the judgment may vary if the false statement had not been made.

[2] According to the provisions of Articles 100(1), 1001 and 1003 of the Civil Act, where a lineal descendant or sibling of the inheritee who is to become an inheritor dies or becomes disqualified before the commencement of the inheritance, and where there is a lineal descendant or spouse of the deceased or disqualified person, he shall be an inheritor in lieu of the deceased or the disqualified person, and where the inheritance by representation is recognized only where the deceased or the disqualified person (the deceased or disqualified person) is a lineal descendant or sibling of the inheritee. Thus, the spouse of the person who is to become an inheritor (the deceased or disqualified person) may be an inheritor pursuant to Article 1003 of the Civil Act. However, where the spouse of the person who is to become an inheritor (the deceased or disqualified person) dies or becomes disqualified before the commencement of the inheritance by representation, the spouse cannot be again recognized as an inheritor.

[1] Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 1000(1), 1001, and 103 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da5914 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 873) Supreme Court Decision 92Da33930 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 294) Supreme Court Decision 92Da33695 delivered on November 19, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 58) Supreme Court Decision 96Da18397 delivered on September 6, 196

Plaintiff (Re-Appellant Defendant) 1 and five others (Attorney Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the re-appellant) who is a party to the lawsuit of the deceased non-party 2

Defendant (Reexamination Plaintiff) 1

Defendant (Re-Examination Plaintiff) 2 and 3 others (Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 97Na214, 221 delivered on November 20, 1998

All appeals filed by the plaintiff (the defendant) and the defendant (the plaintiff) 2, 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising between the plaintiff (the defendant) and the defendant (the plaintiff) 1 shall be borne by the plaintiff (the defendant for retrial) and the defendant (the plaintiff for retrial), and the part arising between the plaintiff (the defendant for retrial), the defendant (the plaintiff for retrial), the defendant (the plaintiff for retrial), the defendant (the plaintiff for retrial), the defendant (the plaintiff for retrial), the defendant (the plaintiff for retrial), and the defendant (the plaintiff for retrial) 5 shall be borne by the same defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff (the defendant for retrial, the plaintiff)

A. As to the grounds for retrial

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the false statement of a witness, which is a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, becomes a evidence of the judgment" means the case where the false statement is provided as direct or indirect material of fact-finding that affects the text of the judgment, and it is probable that if the false statement had not been made, the text of the judgment may vary (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da18397 delivered on September 6, 199

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the non-party 1 appeared as a witness in the litigation procedure for the judgment subject to a retrial and became final and conclusive upon being sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 due to perjury by making a false statement as stated in its reasoning; the non-party 1's false statement was proven as evidence, and the judgment for the judgment subject to a retrial by the non-party 2 (the decedent of the plaintiff) was rendered on November 17, 1991, with the purport that the non-party 2 (the defendant of the plaintiff) acquired the land of this case by prescription. Such circumstances are deemed to constitute grounds for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the revocation of the judgment subject to

B. As to the main claim

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below determined that the above non-party 2 acquired the land of this case from the non-party 3 merely because it was the right to cultivate the land of this case, and that the presumption of autonomous possession of the land of this case was broken, and it is justified to reject the plaintiffs' assertion of prescriptive acquisition based on the premise that the possession of the above non-party 2 is an autonomous possession, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as alleged by the plaintiffs.

2. The judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant (the plaintiff in retrial, the plaintiff in retrial), the defendant (the plaintiff in retrial), the defendant (the plaintiff in retrial), the defendant (the plaintiff in retrial), and the defendant (the plaintiff in retrial) 5

According to Articles 100(1), 1001 and 103 of the Civil Act, where a lineal descendant or sibling of the inheritee who is to become an inheritor dies or becomes disqualified before the commencement of the inheritance, and where there is a lineal descendant or spouse of the deceased or disqualified person, he shall be an inheritor in lieu of the order of the deceased or the disqualified person, and where succession by representation is recognized only where the person who is to become an inheritor (the deceased or disqualified person) is a lineal descendant or sibling of the inheritee. Thus, the spouse of the person who is to become an inheritor (the deceased or disqualified person) may be an inheritor pursuant to Article 1003 of the Civil Act. However, where the spouse of the person who is to become an inheritor (the deceased or disqualified person) dies or becomes disqualified before the commencement of the inheritance by substitute (the deceased or disqualified person) is deceased or becomes disqualified, the spouse may not be again recognized as an inheritor.

According to the records, the defendant (the plaintiff), the defendant (the plaintiff) 2, the defendant (the plaintiff) 3, the defendant 4, and the defendant (the plaintiff) 5 were born between the non-party 5 who was the father of the non-party 4 and the non-party 6, and the non-party 5 clearly died before the non-party 4 died. Thus, if the non-party 5, who was the lineal ascendant of the above defendants, was the non-party 4's husband and was alive at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of this case, the non-party 4 could not become the non-party 4's heir as long as the non-party 4 died first before the non-party 4 died, and the above defendants, the non-party 5' lineal descendant, the non-party 5, as the non-party 4's spouse, become the non-party 4's heir or the non-party 5 and the non-party 4 on the premise of this, cannot become the non-party 7's heir.

In the same purport, the court below is just in the measure denying the standing to sue of the above Defendants on the premise that the above Defendants cannot become the heir of Nonparty 7, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the standing to sue of the above Defendants.

3. Therefore, all appeals filed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants (Plaintiffs for Retrial), 2, 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant (Plaintiffs for Retrial) are assessed against the Plaintiffs. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants (Plaintiffs for Retrial), 2, 3, 4, and 5 are assessed against the Plaintiffs and the Defendant (Plaintiffs for Retrial), the Defendant (Plaintiffs for Retrial), and the Defendant (Plaintiffs for Retrial). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hoon (Presiding Justice)